for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords

Publisher: Oxford University Press   (Total: 370 journals)

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Showing 1 - 200 of 370 Journals sorted alphabetically
Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.881, h-index: 38)
Adaptation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.111, h-index: 4)
Aesthetic Surgery J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 1.538, h-index: 35)
African Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 57, SJR: 1.512, h-index: 46)
Age and Ageing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 82, SJR: 1.611, h-index: 107)
Alcohol and Alcoholism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.935, h-index: 80)
American Entomologist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
American Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 129, SJR: 0.652, h-index: 43)
American J. of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41, SJR: 1.441, h-index: 77)
American J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 157, SJR: 3.047, h-index: 201)
American J. of Hypertension     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 1.397, h-index: 111)
American J. of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
American J. of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.151, h-index: 7)
American Law and Economics Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.824, h-index: 23)
American Literary History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.185, h-index: 22)
Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Annals of Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35, SJR: 1.912, h-index: 124)
Annals of Occupational Hygiene     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.837, h-index: 57)
Annals of Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 4.362, h-index: 173)
Annals of the Entomological Society of America     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.642, h-index: 53)
Annals of Work Exposures and Health     Hybrid Journal  
AoB Plants     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.78, h-index: 10)
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.884, h-index: 31)
Applied Linguistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 51, SJR: 1.749, h-index: 63)
Applied Mathematics Research eXpress     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.779, h-index: 11)
Arbitration Intl.     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.96, h-index: 71)
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.102, h-index: 20)
Arthropod Management Tests     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Astronomy & Geophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 0.144, h-index: 15)
Behavioral Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 1.698, h-index: 92)
Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 236, SJR: 4.643, h-index: 271)
Biology Methods and Protocols     Hybrid Journal  
Biology of Reproduction     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.646, h-index: 149)
Biometrika     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 2.801, h-index: 90)
BioScience     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 2.374, h-index: 154)
Bioscience Horizons : The National Undergraduate Research J.     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.213, h-index: 9)
Biostatistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.955, h-index: 55)
BJA : British J. of Anaesthesia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 141, SJR: 2.314, h-index: 133)
BJA Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 66, SJR: 0.272, h-index: 20)
Brain     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 61, SJR: 6.097, h-index: 264)
Briefings in Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45, SJR: 4.086, h-index: 73)
Briefings in Functional Genomics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.771, h-index: 50)
British J. for the Philosophy of Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33, SJR: 1.267, h-index: 38)
British J. of Aesthetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.217, h-index: 18)
British J. of Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 510, SJR: 1.373, h-index: 62)
British J. of Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 79, SJR: 0.771, h-index: 53)
British Medical Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.391, h-index: 84)
British Yearbook of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.474, h-index: 31)
Cambridge J. of Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56, SJR: 0.957, h-index: 59)
Cambridge J. of Regions, Economy and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.067, h-index: 22)
Cambridge Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.1, h-index: 7)
Capital Markets Law J.     Hybrid Journal  
Carcinogenesis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.439, h-index: 167)
Cardiovascular Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 2.897, h-index: 175)
Cerebral Cortex     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 4.827, h-index: 192)
CESifo Economic Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.501, h-index: 19)
Chemical Senses     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.436, h-index: 76)
Children and Schools     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.211, h-index: 18)
Chinese J. of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chinese J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.737, h-index: 11)
Chinese J. of Intl. Politics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.238, h-index: 15)
Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.191, h-index: 8)
Classical Receptions J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.1, h-index: 3)
Clinical Infectious Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58, SJR: 4.742, h-index: 261)
Clinical Kidney J.     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.338, h-index: 19)
Community Development J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 0.47, h-index: 28)
Computer J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.371, h-index: 47)
Conservation Physiology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Contemporary Women's Writing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.111, h-index: 3)
Contributions to Political Economy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.313, h-index: 10)
Critical Values     Full-text available via subscription  
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Current Zoology     Full-text available via subscription   (SJR: 0.999, h-index: 20)
Database : The J. of Biological Databases and Curation     Open Access   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.068, h-index: 24)
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Diplomatic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.296, h-index: 22)
DNA Research     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 2.42, h-index: 77)
Dynamics and Statistics of the Climate System     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Early Music     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.124, h-index: 11)
Economic Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 2.052, h-index: 52)
ELT J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 1.26, h-index: 23)
English Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 0.311, h-index: 10)
English: J. of the English Association     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.144, h-index: 3)
Environmental Entomology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.791, h-index: 66)
Environmental Epigenetics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Environmental History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.197, h-index: 25)
EP-Europace     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.201, h-index: 71)
Epidemiologic Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 3.917, h-index: 81)
ESHRE Monographs     Hybrid Journal  
Essays in Criticism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.1, h-index: 6)
European Heart J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 6.997, h-index: 227)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Imaging     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 2.044, h-index: 58)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
European Heart J. - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes     Hybrid Journal  
European Heart J. Supplements     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.152, h-index: 31)
European J. of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.568, h-index: 104)
European J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 149, SJR: 0.722, h-index: 38)
European J. of Orthodontics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.09, h-index: 60)
European J. of Public Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 1.284, h-index: 64)
European Review of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.549, h-index: 42)
European Review of Economic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.628, h-index: 24)
European Sociological Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 2.061, h-index: 53)
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Family Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.048, h-index: 77)
Fems Microbiology Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.687, h-index: 115)
Fems Microbiology Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 1.126, h-index: 118)
Fems Microbiology Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 7.587, h-index: 150)
Fems Yeast Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.213, h-index: 66)
Foreign Policy Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.859, h-index: 10)
Forestry: An Intl. J. of Forest Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.903, h-index: 44)
Forum for Modern Language Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.108, h-index: 6)
French History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 0.123, h-index: 10)
French Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.119, h-index: 7)
French Studies Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.102, h-index: 3)
Gastroenterology Report     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Genome Biology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 10, SJR: 3.22, h-index: 39)
Geophysical J. Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31, SJR: 1.839, h-index: 119)
German History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.437, h-index: 13)
GigaScience     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Global Summitry     Hybrid Journal  
Glycobiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.692, h-index: 101)
Health and Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 0.505, h-index: 40)
Health Education Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.814, h-index: 80)
Health Policy and Planning     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.628, h-index: 66)
Health Promotion Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.664, h-index: 60)
History Workshop J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.313, h-index: 20)
Holocaust and Genocide Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.115, h-index: 13)
Human Molecular Genetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 4.288, h-index: 233)
Human Reproduction     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 79, SJR: 2.271, h-index: 179)
Human Reproduction Update     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 4.678, h-index: 128)
Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58, SJR: 0.7, h-index: 21)
ICES J. of Marine Science: J. du Conseil     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 1.233, h-index: 88)
ICSID Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
ILAR J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.099, h-index: 51)
IMA J. of Applied Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.329, h-index: 26)
IMA J. of Management Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.351, h-index: 20)
IMA J. of Mathematical Control and Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.661, h-index: 28)
IMA J. of Numerical Analysis - advance access     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 2.032, h-index: 44)
Industrial and Corporate Change     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.37, h-index: 81)
Industrial Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.184, h-index: 15)
Information and Inference     Free  
Integrative and Comparative Biology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.911, h-index: 90)
Interacting with Computers     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.529, h-index: 59)
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.743, h-index: 35)
Intl. Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 51, SJR: 1.264, h-index: 53)
Intl. Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Intl. Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.835, h-index: 15)
Intl. Immunology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.613, h-index: 111)
Intl. J. for Quality in Health Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32, SJR: 1.593, h-index: 69)
Intl. J. of Constitutional Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 59, SJR: 0.613, h-index: 19)
Intl. J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 126, SJR: 4.381, h-index: 145)
Intl. J. of Law and Information Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.247, h-index: 8)
Intl. J. of Law, Policy and the Family     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 0.307, h-index: 15)
Intl. J. of Lexicography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.404, h-index: 18)
Intl. J. of Low-Carbon Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.457, h-index: 12)
Intl. J. of Neuropsychopharmacology     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.69, h-index: 79)
Intl. J. of Public Opinion Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.906, h-index: 33)
Intl. J. of Refugee Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32, SJR: 0.231, h-index: 21)
Intl. J. of Transitional Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.833, h-index: 12)
Intl. Mathematics Research Notices     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 2.052, h-index: 42)
Intl. Political Sociology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 1.339, h-index: 19)
Intl. Relations of the Asia-Pacific     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.539, h-index: 17)
Intl. Studies Perspectives     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.998, h-index: 28)
Intl. Studies Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 36, SJR: 2.184, h-index: 68)
Intl. Studies Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.783, h-index: 38)
ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.155, h-index: 4)
ITNOW     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.102, h-index: 4)
J. of African Economies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.647, h-index: 30)
J. of American History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 0.286, h-index: 34)
J. of Analytical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.038, h-index: 60)
J. of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 2.157, h-index: 149)
J. of Antitrust Enforcement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
J. of Applied Poultry Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.563, h-index: 43)
J. of Biochemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 43, SJR: 1.341, h-index: 96)
J. of Chromatographic Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.448, h-index: 42)
J. of Church and State     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.167, h-index: 11)
J. of Competition Law and Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 0.442, h-index: 16)
J. of Complex Networks     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.165, h-index: 5)
J. of Conflict and Security Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.196, h-index: 15)
J. of Consumer Research     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 41, SJR: 4.896, h-index: 121)
J. of Crohn's and Colitis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.543, h-index: 37)
J. of Cybersecurity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
J. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.69, h-index: 36)
J. of Design History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.166, h-index: 14)
J. of Economic Entomology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.894, h-index: 76)
J. of Economic Geography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 2.909, h-index: 69)
J. of Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.457, h-index: 20)
J. of European Competition Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
J. of Experimental Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 2.798, h-index: 163)
J. of Financial Econometrics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.314, h-index: 27)
J. of Global Security Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
J. of Heredity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.024, h-index: 76)
J. of Hindu Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.186, h-index: 3)
J. of Hip Preservation Surgery     Open Access  
J. of Human Rights Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.399, h-index: 10)
J. of Infectious Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40, SJR: 4, h-index: 209)
J. of Insect Science     Open Access   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.388, h-index: 31)

        1 2 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Journal Cover Family Practice
  [SJR: 1.048]   [H-I: 77]   [12 followers]  Follow
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
   ISSN (Print) 0263-2136 - ISSN (Online) 1460-2229
   Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [370 journals]
  • Quandaries in patient and community engagement in research
    • Authors: Westfall J; Zittleman L.
      First page: 253
      PubDate: 2017-05-19
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx047
  • Early assessment of the 10-step patient engagement framework for
           patient-centred outcomes research studies: the first three steps
    • Authors: Sofolahan-Oladeinde Y; Newhouse R, Lavallee D, et al.
      First page: 272
      Abstract: Background.A key principle of patient-centred outcomes research (PCOR) is the engagement of patients and other stakeholders in the research process, but the evidence is still emerging on the impact patient engagement has on the research process. A 10-step framework has been developed to provide methodological guidance for patient engagement throughout the research process. However, the utility of the framework for patient engagement has not been tested in actual research studies.Objective.To describe researcher’s overall experiences with engaging patients at the beginning of their PCOR research process.Methods.Twelve in-depth interviews were conducted face-to-face and by telephone with PCOR researchers between November 2014 and January 2015 at an Academic Health Center in the eastern USA. All data were audiotaped and transcribed, and NVivo 10 software was used for data analysis.Results.Four major themes emerged (i) the importance of patient engagement and how it provides ‘a perspective you can’t get unless you talk to the patient’; (ii) the impact of patient engagement; (iii) challenges and barriers of engagement; and (iv) the realities of patient engagement.Conclusions.Researchers’ views illustrate the need to re-evaluate patient engagement in PCOR based on current realities. Given the many challenges to engagement that researchers encounter, it may be more productive to redefine the process of patient engagement so that the issues researchers now face are taken into account in future funding announcements, engagement rubrics and methodology frameworks developed.
      PubDate: 2017-02-23
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx013
  • The North American Primary Care Research Group’s Patient and Clinician
           Engagement Program (PaCE): Demystifying patient engagement through a dyad
    • Authors: Sand J; Felzien M, Haeme R, et al.
      First page: 285
      Abstract: Background.Community engagement in research is essential for translating the best evidence into community and clinical practice to improve the health and well-being of the population.Objective.North American Primary Care Research Group’s Patient and Clinician Engagement Program (PaCE) program aims to develop a robust community of patients and primary care providers with knowledge and understanding of the unique features of patient-centred outcomes research related to primary care in order to advocate for and engage in research.Methods.PaCE employs a ‘dyad’ model in which a patient and a primary care provider collaborate to learn about and engage in primary care, primary care research, grant review, proposal development and advocacy. A series of educational trainings held in conjunction with national primary care conferences, international webinars and local symposia make up the foundation of the PaCE curriculum.Results and Conclusions.To date, 186 participants have completed the full-day, interactive PaCE training, and more than 250 people have participated in PaCE webinars and/or symposia. A 6-month follow-up sent to PaCE participants evaluates engagement activities following training.
      PubDate: 2017-04-12
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx027
  • Patient-centred outcomes research: brave new world meets old institutional
    • Authors: Chung J; Young H, Moreno M, et al.
      First page: 296
      Abstract: Background.Engaging patients across the research trajectory supports research that is generalizable, high quality, timely and actionable. However, this approach comes with challenges and opportunities as investigators and engaged patient stakeholders encounter institutional policies around patient engagement, privacy and research participant protection.Objective.To describe the resolution and impact of quandaries arising when patient stakeholders’ values and preferences conflicted with institutional policies.Methods.Case study from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded trial.Results.The first example focuses on the tension between the health care organization’s requirements for background checks for all patient advisors and the funders’ requirement to engage hard-to-reach populations. To create an environment of mutual trust and respect with patient stakeholders, the research team decided against imposing background checks. All 53 patient and parent advisors have served continuously for 2 years and meeting attendance exceeds 95%. The second example describes parent stakeholders’ role in revising a letter informing patients about a privacy violation. Among 49 families affected by and informed about this violation, 35 (71%) agreed to participate. The third example focuses on how patient stakeholder preferences about study reminders conflict with the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules. While patient stakeholders strongly endorsed text message reminders, regulations and technology do not permit reminders with enough detail to ensure clarity. Although retention rates exceeded 90%, attendance at study appointments was below 75% and below 60% for minority and low socio-economic status families.Conclusion.Patient engagement positively impacts research. Resolving conflicts between patient-engaged research and existing institutional policies and regulations would allow this impact to become fully realized.
      PubDate: 2017-01-24
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw129
  • The shifting dynamics of social roles and project ownership over the
           lifecycle of a community-based participatory research project
    • Authors: Salsberg J; Macridis S, Garcia Bengoechea E, et al.
      First page: 305
      Abstract: Background. Community based participatory research (CBPR) is often initiated by academic researchers, yet relies on meaningful community engagement and ownership to have lasting impact. Little is understood about how ownership shifts from academic to community partners.Objectives. We examined a CBPR project over its life course and asked: what does the evolution of ownership look like from project initiation by an academic (non-community) champion (T1); to maturation—when the intervention is ready to be deployed (T2); to independence—the time when the original champion steps aside (T3); and finally, to its maintenance—when the community has had an opportunity to function independently of the original academic champion (T4)?Methods. Using sociometric (whole network) social network analysis, knowledge leadership was measured using ‘in-degree centrality’. Stakeholder network structure was measured using ‘centralisation’ and ‘core-periphery analysis’. Friedman rank sum test was used to measure change in actor roles over time from T1 to T4.Results. Project stakeholder roles were observed to shift significantly (P < 0.005) from initiation (T1) to project maintenance (T4). Community stakeholders emerged into positions of knowledge leadership, while the roles of academic partners diminished in importance. The overall stakeholder network demonstrated a structural shift towards a core of densely interacting community stakeholders.Conclusion. This was the first study to use Social network analysis to document a shift in ownership from academic to community partners, indicating community self-determination over the research process. Further analysis of qualitative data will determine which participatory actions or strategies were responsible for this observed change.
      PubDate: 2017-02-21
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx006
  • Engaging African American women in research: an approach to eliminate
           health disparities in the African American community
    • Authors: Brown Speights JS; Nowakowski AH, De Leon J, et al.
      First page: 322
      Abstract: Objective:To explore the success of community-based participatory research [CBPR] in engaging African American women to achieve health equity by elucidating community, trust, communication and impact. Recommendations helpful for researchers interested in engaging communities to achieve health equity in the USA are included.Inroduction:African American women experience health disparities of multifactorial etiology and are underrepresented in research. CBPR is a collaborative approach that incorporates perspectives, which address the intricate determinants of health and has been reported as an effective means to address health disparities. Yet, the science of CBPR seems elusive to researchers in the medical field. The opportunity exists to better understand and expand the use of the principles of engagement, replication, and sustainability in engaging African American women in health research.Methods:A variety of literature regarding engaging African American women in community-based participatory research was reviewed.Results:CBPR focused on robust engagement of marginalized groups continues to be validated as a vital approach to the elimination of disparities and improved health for all, especially ethnic and racial minority populations. However, limited evidence of focused engagement of African American women was found. Making specific outreach to African American women must be a community and patient engagement priority to achieve health equity.Conclusions:Continued research is needed which specifically focuses on building and sustaining engagement with African American women and their communities. This research can transform healthcare access, experiences and outcomes by yielding actionable information about what African American women need and want to promote wellness for themselves and their communities.
      PubDate: 2017-04-06
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx026
  • Lessons learned from community-based participatory research: establishing
           a partnership to support lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ageing in
    • Authors: Wright L; King D, Retrum J, et al.
      First page: 330
      Abstract: Background.Due to a history of oppression and lack of culturally competent services, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) seniors experience barriers to accessing social services. Tailoring an evidence-based ageing in place intervention to address the unique needs of LGBT seniors may decrease the isolation often faced by this population.Objective.To describe practices used in the formation of a community-based participatory research (CBPR), partnership involving social workers, health services providers, researchers and community members who engaged to establish a LGBT ageing in place model called Seniors Using Supports To Age In Neighborhoods (SUSTAIN).Methods.A case study approach was employed to describe the partnership development process by reflecting on past meeting minutes, progress reports and interviews with SUSTAIN’s partners.Results.Key partnering practices utilized by SUSTAIN included (i) development of a shared commitment and vision; (ii) identifying partners with intersecting spheres of influence in multiple communities of identity (ageing services, LGBT, health research); (iii) attending to power dynamics (e.g. equitable sharing of funds); and (iv) building community capacity through reciprocal learning. Although the partnership dissolved after 4 years, it served as a successful catalyst to establish community programming to support ageing in place for LGBT seniors.Conclusion.Multi-sector stakeholder involvement with capacity to connect communities and use frameworks that formalize equity was key to establishing a high-trust CBPR partnership. However, lack of focus on external forces impacting each partner (e.g. individual organizational strategic planning, community funding agency perspectives) ultimately led to dissolution of the SUSTAIN partnership even though implementation of community programming was realized.
      PubDate: 2017-02-21
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx005
  • Engagement strategies that foster community self-determination in
           participatory research: Insider ownership through outsider championship
    • Authors: Salsberg J; Macridis S, Garcia Bengoechea E, et al.
      First page: 336
      Abstract: Background.In order to maximize the benefits of community-based participatory research, effective ownership over the research process must be at least equally in the hands of the community. A previous social network analysis documented that the participatory research process shifted ownership from academic to community partners, but did not show what actions and strategies fostered this shift.Objectives.This study follows the trajectory of a community-academic partnership and asks, from the perspective of the project stakeholders, which actions and strategies over the lifespan of the research led to the observed shift in ownership and decision-making from the original external academics to the community stakeholders?Methods.Qualitative description using inductive thematic analysis. One academic and five community stakeholders identified as central in a previous social network analysis, participated in retrospective, semi-structured interviews.Results.Actions deemed to have fostered the observed shift in ownership included: existence of a strong champion; stimulating ‘outside’ ideas; emergence of core people; alignment of project goals with stakeholders’ professional roles; involving the right people; personal qualities of the champion; trust-building; and active use of participatory engagement strategies.Conclusion.Although communities must take ownership over the research process to assure sustained action and change, a strong, trusted and accepted outside champion who actively enacts participatory engagement strategies can facilitate the participatory process and provide community stakeholders the time and support they need to achieve meaningful and sustained leadership roles. These findings have implications for how partnership research is designed and implemented, both in community and in clinical organisational settings.
      PubDate: 2017-02-18
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx001
  • A successful model for longitudinal community-engaged health research: the
           2040 Partners for Health Student Program
    • Authors: Redman RM; Reinsvold MC, Reddy A, et al.
      First page: 341
      Abstract: Introduction.Community-based participatory research [CBPR] is an emerging approach to collaborative research aimed at creating locally effective and sustainable interventions. The 2040 Partners for Health student program was developed as a unique model of longitudinal CBPR. Analysis of this program and its components illuminates both the challenges and the opportunities inherent in community engagement.Methods.The program rests on a foundation of a community-based, non-profit organization and a supportive academic university centre. Inter-professional health students and community members of underserved populations work together on different health projects by employing an adapted CBPR methodology. Three successful examples of sustainable CBPR projects are briefly described.Results.The three projects are presented as primary outcomes resulting from this model. Benefits and challenges of the model as an approach to community-engaged research are discussed as well as secondary benefits of student participation.Conclusion.The 2040 Partners for Health student program represents a successful model of CBPR, illuminating common challenges and reiterating the profound value of community-engaged research.
      PubDate: 2017-04-12
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx025
  • Reconciling research and community priorities in participatory trials:
           application to Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados
    • Authors: Allen M; Garcia-Huidobro D, Bastian T, et al.
      First page: 347
      Abstract: Background.Participatory research (PR) trials aim to achieve the dual, and at times competing, demands of producing an intervention and research process that address community perspectives and priorities, while establishing intervention effectiveness.Objective.To identify research and community priorities that must be reconciled in the areas of collaborative processes, study design and aim and study implementation quality in order to successfully conduct a participatory trial. We describe how this reconciliation was approached in the smoking prevention participatory trial Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados (Informed Parents/Prepared Youth) and evaluate the success of our reconciled priorities.Methods.Data sources to evaluate success of the reconciliations included a survey of all partners regarding collaborative group processes, intervention participant recruitment and attendance and surveys of enrolled study participants assessing intervention outcomes.Results.While we successfully achieved our reconciled collaborative processes and implementation quality goals, we did not achieve our reconciled goals in study aim and design. Due in part to the randomized wait-list control group design chosen in the reconciliation process, we were not able to demonstrate overall efficacy of the intervention or offer timely services to families in need of support.Conclusion.Achieving the goals of participatory trials is challenging but may yield community and research benefits. Innovative research designs are needed to better support the complex goals of participatory trials.
      PubDate: 2017-02-01
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw143
  • Stakeholder engagement in diabetes self-management: patient preference for
           peer support and other insights
    • Authors: Kwan B; Jortberg B, Warman M, et al.
      First page: 358
      Abstract: Background.Self-management support (SMS) for patients with diabetes can improve adherence to treatment, mitigate disease-related distress, and improve health outcomes. Translating this evidence into real-world practice is needed, as it is not clear which SMS models are acceptable to patients, and feasible and sustainable for primary care practices.Objective.To use the Boot Camp Translation (BCT) method to engage patient, practice, community resource and research stakeholders in translation of evidence about SMS and diabetes distress into mutually acceptable care models and to inform patient-centred outcomes research (PCOR).Participants.Twenty-seven diabetes care stakeholders, including patients and providers from a local network of federally qualified health centres participated.Methods.Stakeholders met in-person and by conference call over the course of 8 months. Subject matter experts provided education on the diabetes SMS evidence. Facilitators engaged the group in discussions about barriers to self-management and opportunities for improving delivery of SMS.Key Results.BCT participants identified lack of social support, personal resources, trust, knowledge and confidence as barriers to diabetes self-management. Intervention opportunities emphasized peer support, use of multidisciplinary care teams and centralized systems for sharing information about community and practice resources. BCT informed new services and a PCOR study proposal.Conclusions.Patients and family engaged in diabetes care research value peer support, group visits, and multidisciplinary care teams as key features of SMS models. SMS should be tailored to an individual patient’s health literacy. BCT can be used to engage multiple stakeholders in translation of evidence into practice and to inform PCOR.
      PubDate: 2017-01-02
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw127
  • Developing a patient and family research advisory panel to include people
           with significant disease, multimorbidity and advanced age
    • Authors: Portalupi L; Lewis C, Miller C, et al.
      First page: 364
      Abstract: Background.People who have experienced illness due to significant disease, multimorbidity and/or advanced age are high utilizers of the health care system. Yet this population has had little formal opportunity to participate in guiding the health care research agenda, and few mechanisms exist for researchers to engage this population in an efficient way.Objective.We describe the process of developing a standing patient and family advisory panel to incorporate this population’s voice into research in the USA.Methods.The panel was created at the University of Colorado. Preliminary panel development consisted of a needs assessment, information gathering and participant recruitment. We collected feedback from researchers who consulted with the panel and from panel members in order to better understand the experience from the patient and family member perspective.Results.The patient and family research advisory panel consists of eight advisors who have experience with significant disease, multimorbidity and/or advanced age, two physicians and a program manager. The panel meets every other month for 2 hours with the main purpose of advising diverse researchers on health care studies.Conclusion.People with significant disease, multimorbidity and/or advanced age represent a growing demographic in the USA, and their engagement in research is essential as the model of health care delivery moves from volume to value.
      PubDate: 2017-01-24
      DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw138
  • Patient perspectives on engagement in shared decision-making for asthma
    • Authors: Tapp H; Derkowski D, Calvert M, et al.
      Abstract: Introduction.Engagement of patient and advocacy group stakeholders is increasingly considered essential to meaningful outcomes research. Patient-centred research benefits from partnership formation between patients, clinicians and research team members. Here, we describe the rationale for engaging patients on a research team and a case study of patient engagement on an asthma shared decision-making study.Methods.Here, we describe a case study of patient engagement in outcomes research and examine the variety of roles patients are engaged in and the associated impact on the study.Results.Patients assisted the project at various levels and were integrated into the research team by (i) advising on study development; (ii) assisting with design and usability of study materials, including the toolkit, patient surveys and dissemination strategies; and (iii) advocacy via membership in external disease-specific organizations and participating in outcomes research conferences. Patients were engaged both individually and as members of a patient advisory board. Primary lessons learned were the importance of building a trusting partnership with patients through understanding perspectives, being aware of clearly explaining patients’ roles, research methods and jargon, providing training, listening to patients’ needs and understanding what the partnership means from a patient perspective.Conclusions.For the case study described, patient engagement directly influenced multiple aspects of the study, including study design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination through incorporation of the patients’ and caregivers’ input and concerns.
      PubDate: 2016-12-29
  • Engaging patients in primary care practice transformation: theory,
           evidence and practice
    • Authors: Sharma A; Grumbach K.
      Abstract: Patient engagement is a fundamental strategy for achieving patient centred care and is receiving increasing attention in primary care reform efforts such as the patient-centred medical home and related care models. Much of the prior published theory and evidence supporting patient engagement has focused on improving engagement in individual care. Much less is understood about engaging patients as partners in practice improvement at the primary care clinic or practice level. We review the historical and policy context for the growing interest in the USA and UK in patient engagement at the primary care practice level, highlight findings from systematic reviews of the research evidence on practice-level patient engagement and discuss practical considerations for implementing patient engagement. We conclude that while there are persuasive ethical and social justice reasons for empowering patient involvement in practice improvement at the clinic level, research conducted to date in primary care provides suggestive but not yet resounding evidence in support of the instrumental triple aim benefit of practice-level patient engagement. We propose a research agenda to better understand the process and outcomes of practice-level patient engagement and its potential advantages to both the practice and the patients and communities served. Better evidence as well as resources to support and incentivize effective and feasible engagement methods are needed to catalyse greater diffusion of practice-level patient engagement in primary care practices.
      PubDate: 2016-12-29
  • Participatory research: What is the history? Has the purpose
    • Authors: Macaulay A.
      PubDate: 2016-12-16
  • Is knowledge translation without patient or community engagement
    • Authors: Ramsden V; Rabbitskin N, Westfall J, et al.
      Abstract: Background.The engagement of patients/individuals and/or communities has become increasingly important in all aspects of the research process.Objective.The aim of this manuscript is to begin the discussion about the use and implementation of authentic engagement in the development of presentations and manuscripts which evolve from research that has engaged patients/individuals and/or communities.Methods.Community-Based Participatory Research; Transformative Action Research.Results and Discussion.In Canada, the framework for engaging patients/individuals and/or communities is clearly outlined in Chapter 9 of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans which indicates that when research projects involving First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, the peoples in these communities are to have a role in shaping/co-creating the research that affects them. It is increasingly important that presentations and manuscripts that evolve from results/findings which have engaged patients/individuals and/or communities be co-presented/co-published. Presentations are often done without patients/individuals and/or communities and manuscripts published with only academic authors. Frequently, grants submitted and subsequently funded do not consider this aspect of the process in the budget which makes integrated and outcome knowledge translation, dissemination and distribution by and with patients/individuals and/or communities difficult to facilitate.Conclusions.This manuscript was designed to begin the discussion at various levels related to authentic engagement in the development of presentations and manuscripts which evolve from research that has engaged patients/individuals and/or communities. How will you include patients/individuals and/or communities in your presentations and publications?
      PubDate: 2016-11-30
  • Institutional review board training when patients and community members
           are engaged as researchers
    • Authors: Westfall J; Zittleman L, Felzien M, et al.
      Abstract: Background.Patient engagement efforts often rely on a participatory research approach, which means engaging patients and community members in all aspects of research. As research team members, they require familiarity with the principles of human subject protection, privacy, and institutional review boards (IRB). However, the time required for individual IRB training may be a barrier to engaging community members in participatory research. As more community members participated in research, the State Networks of Colorado Practices and Partners (SNOCAP) was faced with finding a balance between including community members as part of the research team and the significant time commitment and institutional requirements for human subjects research oversight.Objective.Design and implement a community training on human subject protection in research.Methods.The SNOCAP team worked with the leadership from the Colorado Multi-Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) to develop a training programme that included the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects. Results.The final training programme was based on the core principles of the Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Privacy was taught using the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) national guidelines.Conclusions.The members of the High Plains Research Network Community Advisory Council were fully engaged in developing the training programme, as well as in the training itself. They were committed to the principles and guidelines for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects. Patients and community members have become a critical part of our research team. They understand the principles of human subjects protection and privacy and incorporate these principles into their research activities.
      PubDate: 2016-11-19
  • Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: an
           analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA
    • Authors: MacFarlane A; Galvin R, O’Sullivan M, et al.
      Abstract: Background.There are increasing imperatives for patients and members of the public to engage as partners in identifying health research priorities. The use of participatory methods to engage stakeholders in health care in research prioritization is not commonly reported.Objective.This article analyses the use of World Cafés as a participatory method for research prioritization with marginalized communities in Ireland and the USA.Methods.The principles of purposeful and snowball sampling were followed in both settings and a diverse range of community and health care stakeholders participated (n = 63 Ireland and n = 55 USA). The principles for a classic World Café were employed but there were novel features in each setting as well. Stewart et al.’s (Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities. Health Expect 2011; 14: 439–48, conceptual framework for patient engagement was adapted and used to comparatively analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the World Cafés, focusing on agenda setting, engagement with research processes, interactional features and outputs.Results.Design principles for World Cafés were found to align with high-quality patient engagement for research prioritization in both settings. They served to facilitate meaningful collaboration among stakeholder groups in research prioritization (research agenda setting) and explored research priorities (engagement with research). The café ambience, emphasis on hospitality and self-facilitation created an environment for dialogues within and across participating groups (interactional features). There was a commitment to follow-up actions with reference to possible subsequent research (outputs).Conclusions.The World Café is a valuable, participatory, flexible method that can be used with community and health care stakeholders for research prioritization with marginalized communities.
      PubDate: 2016-09-27
  • Tokenism in patient engagement
    • Authors: Hahn D; Hoffmann A, Felzien M, et al.
      Abstract: Background.Patient engagement throughout research is a way to generate more relevant patient-important research questions, methods and results with the ultimate aim of facilitating translation of research into practice. Tokenism is defined as the practice of making perfunctory or symbolic efforts to engage communities or patients.Objective.We wanted to explore how tokenism might influence engaging patients in research to help researchers work towards more genuine engagement.Methods.The Community Clinician Advisory Group and Patient and Clinician Engagement program held a workshop at the 2015 North American Primary Care Research Group meeting titled ‘How Do We Move beyond Tokenism in Patient Engagement?’ Patients, clinicians and academic researchers contributed examples of genuine and token engagement characteristics based on personal experience and knowledge. Data were iteratively collated and categorized into domains and items.Results.Examples of genuine and token engagement were categorized into three domains: Methods/Structure of engagement, Intent and Relationship building. Members with experience in patient-engaged research projects felt that longitudinal engagement was a key element to effectively translating research into local community and practice.Conclusions.The group (i) highly valued genuine intent and relationship building as elements to combat tokenism; (ii) noted that early genuine attempts at engagement may superficially resemble tokenism as researchers build enduring and trusting relationships with patient/community partners and (iii) emphasized the importance of seeking and utilizing patient experiences throughout research. These observations may contribute to more formal methods to help researchers (and reviewers) evaluate where engagement processes sit along the ‘genuine–token’ continuum.
      PubDate: 2016-09-22
  • Collective enquiry and reflective action in research: towards a
           clarification of the terminology
    • Authors: Goodyear-Smith F.
      Abstract: Moving from evidence-based medicine through knowledge translation into evidence-based practice presents many challenges. Implementation research requires collaboration of researchers and end users to adapt interventions in response to different contexts. Such research progresses iteratively in response to feedback, reflection and then action, using theory of change and interactive response to diversity. The proliferation of terminology used to describe this research genre requires development of a robust taxonomy to categorize overlapping concepts where engagement of end users in the research process is core. Co-design research redresses past power imbalances where typically research was conducted ‘on’ not ‘with’ populations. Ethics committees charged with protecting rights and autonomy of study participants need to recognize that in co-design, participants are not being ‘done to’ but are engaged and active partners in the study design, and hence relax their requirements for pre-specified study protocol and research documents. Determining which stakeholders should be involved, who can legitimately speak for a group, and how to ensure all have adequate input without being overburdened requires respectful ongoing negotiation. Ultimately, participant engagement is a philosophy not a methodology. Paradigm shift from linear strictly defined processes of traditional ‘laboratory’ research to dynamic approaches adaptive to changing contextual circumstances requires involvement and engagement of end users. This ensures that the evidence generated is relevant and applicable to intended populations, and facilitates sense of ownership in the new knowledge, maximizing its modification and utilization in diverse contexts. Implementing change in response to new information requires enthusiastic champions—none better than those involved in its creation.
      PubDate: 2016-09-14
  • Engaging with communities, engaging with patients: amendment to the NAPCRG
           1998 Policy Statement on Responsible Research With Communities
    • Authors: Allen M; Salsberg J, Knot M, et al.
      Abstract: Background.In 1998, the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) adopted a groundbreaking Policy Statement endorsing responsible participatory research (PR) with communities. Since that time, PR gained prominence in primary care research.Objectives.To reconsider the original 1998 Policy Statement in light of increased uptake of PR, and suggest future directions and applications for PR in primary care. This work contributed to an updated Policy Statement endorsed by NAPCRG in 2015.Methods.32 university and 30 community NAPCRG-affiliated research partners, convened a workshop to document lessons learned about implementing processes and principles of PR. This document emerged from that session and reflection and discussion regarding the original Policy Statement, the emerging PR literature, and our own experiences.Results.The foundational principles articulated in the 1998 Policy Statement remain relevant to the current PR environment. Lessons learned since its publication include that the maturation of partnerships is facilitated by participatory processes that support increased community responsibility for research projects, and benefits generated through PR extend beyond research outcomes. Future directions that will move forward the field of PR in primary care include: (i) improve assessment of PR processes to better delineate the links between how PR teams work together and diverse PR outcomes, (ii) increase the number of models incorporating PR into translational research from project inception to dissemination, and (iii) increase application of PR approaches that support patient engagement in clinical settings to patient-provider relationship and practice change research.Conclusion.PR has markedly altered the manner in which primary care research is undertaken in partnership with communities and its principles and philosophies continue to offer means to assure that research results and processes improve the health of all communities.
      PubDate: 2016-08-19
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016